The Koran -- Serious business.

[Mizango]

All of your examples have been justified by atheists as well. I fail to see the causal link between faith -> murderous fanaticism. Mao had folks kill for him, too.

Which one of those 2 groups put themselves on a pedestal and feels they have a god given right tell every faggot, nigger and kike on the planet how to live their lives?

I mean both sides can make that case lol, but which is the one that lives an openly bold faced double standard? i.e. God hates fags, yet yes I allegedly touched a boy. God hates adultery, yet allow me to introduce you to my mistress etc..

Gotta love anyone that can tell you how to live your life yet cant follow the man made rules and sets of expectations they've made even for themselves.

[Correction]

Gotta love anyone that can tell you how to live your life yet cant follow the man made rules and sets of expectations they've made even for themselves.

Ever wonder how well the communist leaders of the DPRK and China live?

I always seem to have to say this: Atheists are capable of equal evil. It's not religion that makes men like this. It's greed and power.

[Neosutra]

Ever wonder how well the communist leaders of the DPRK and China live?

I always seem to have to say this: Atheists are capable of equal evil. It's not religion that makes men like this. It's greed and power.

And the difference is that "evil" justifications based on human deviance can be removed via rationalization or public examination, while "evil" justifications based on "gods will" are forever unquestionable and divinely correct.

Stop pretending they are the same or remotely similar in occurrence.

[Correction]

And the difference is that "evil" justifications based on human deviance can be removed via rationalization or public examination, while "evil" justifications based on "gods will" are forever unquestionable and divinely correct.

Stop pretending they are the same or remotely similar in occurrence.

I feel like you're arguing with me out of habit and not because I'm necessarily arguing a diametrically opposing point to your own. Atheist cult of personality = religion, when it comes to the extreme effects on a politically oppressed nation of people. They've simply replaced God with an equally infallible supreme leader. The worship laid at the feet of the Kim-il Sung and his bloodline is the reason the country is in the political shape it is in today. This was all done in the absence of christianity/islam/etc. Get rid of all religion from men's minds and no amount of rationalization and public examination is going to squash ruthless ambition as a source of massive human suffering. It's not a question of frequency; it's how you guard against it with the law of the land.

These families were burned to death because the laws failed to protect them, not because the Koran said it was okay for it to happen. I'm not fond of immediately leapfrogging the idea of personal responsibility behind such misery and straight onto the back of your favorite whipping boy that ol' religion. This is where you and I will continue to differ.

[ZarakiKujata]

I think we should all worship the great Hawk of Kazakhstan.

[Blarg]

hey arvin!

in reality, when we refer to the teaching of the Prophet (PBUH) and the Koran, it never said anything of killing people, and you as a muslim basing those penalties on anyone.

using Islam as a justification to kill, i dont know but i dont see it as Islam's fault. people can twist anything in to their own interest. because its very clear about that issue.

I found these from the Hadith, some sound similar to each other but they are supposedly from different parts so I don't know whats up with that.

Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:

Narrated 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:

Narrated Ikrima:

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:

Narrated 'Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58:

Narrated Abu Burda:

Abu Musa said, "I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash'ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Apostle was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet said, 'O Abu Musa (O 'Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.' As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or 'Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'" The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'"

Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271:

Narrated Abu Musa:

A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle

[Neosutra]

I feel like you're arguing with me out of habit and not because I'm necessarily arguing a diametrically opposing point to your own. Atheist cult of personality = religion, when it comes to the extreme effects on a politically oppressed nation of people. They've simply replaced God with an equally infallible supreme leader. The worship laid at the feet of the Kim-il Sung and his bloodline is the reason the country is in the political shape it is in today. This was all done in the absence of christianity/islam/etc. Get rid of all religion from men's minds and no amount of rationalization and public examination is going to squash ruthless ambition as a source of massive human suffering. It's not a question of frequency; it's how you guard against it with the law of the land.

These families were burned to death because the laws failed to protect them, not because the Koran said it was okay for it to happen. I'm not fond of immediately leapfrogging the idea of personal responsibility behind such misery and straight onto the back of your favorite whipping boy that ol' religion. This is where you and I will continue to differ.

You are really comparing Islamic religious states to North Korean nationalism? You are beyond blind if you dont see the difference, and if you dont think the Koran influenced those murders.

And even if you cant conceive of the difference (which I know you can), dictatorships come and go as the people revolt/change leadership, but religious oppression continues through the ages.

[Correction]

Psychologically speaking they are identical, they manipulate the fears and uncertainties of a educationally underprivileged people. What is the point of discussing the differences of how such yokes are overthrown? North Korea is just an example. Conceptually speaking the pain and suffering under an atheist tyrant is the same felt under a religious tyrant. In the latter case they may be using piety as an excuse "God is testing you!" but it's all rhetoric at that point. The violence justified 'by the koran' is an excuse used because they know they're going to get away with it; the police are looking the other way and it's unlikely the perpetrators will ever see a jail cell. When power is so unevenly distributed that's how things will get with or without a holy text saying it's okay to do so. It's okay to rat on your neighbors for talking shit about the Kim family because the Dear Leader will reward you. Nobody's going to be mad and you won't see reprisal for your actions. License to harm is rewarded by the laws of men.

[Elvis]

What are we arguing about now? Every one of these debates turns into a 'religion kills more than X' or vice versa.

If Firas is saying implying there is no violence in the Quran then he's opening him up to a bunch of 'gotcha' type rebuttals.

If you juxtapose these ancient books and concepts to modern day blah blah then of course it's going to seem wacky.

But it is possible to be a Muslim and secular. Unless of course you hold Muslims to a different standard than every single other religious person (meaning to be a Muslim means you obey everything in the Quran - whereas you can be Christian or Jewish and ignore a lot of stuff in your respective ancient book).

[Neosutra]

And we still go back to the difference between psychosis that is derived from fantasy and "divine" truth and one developed from plain fear or rational decisions.

And you skipped the difference between the two: Dictatorships come and go as economies/tribes change and the people revolt. Religious tyrannies last through the ages, as they infect the very people they oppress.

Are you really equating nationalism to religious fanaticism?

[kareface]

All of your examples have been justified by atheists as well. I fail to see the causal link between faith -> murderous fanaticism. Mao had folks kill for him, too.

Because the examples I've given, the acts were committed in the name of faith. In the examples you can come up with, in every instance there would have to be some unjustified faith in order to get to that point. They didn't commit the acts in the name of "not having a god". It still required a faith of some sort to justify their actions, even if it wasn't faith in a deity. Faith won't always lead to tragedy, but it always always takes a faith of some sort to get there. Faith that one person is the incarnation of god, faith that one people are less the another, faith that the words in a book rewritten countless times is absolute truth, faith that killing another person who offers you no risk is justified. Religion idealizes faith, making it out to be something that is good to have or necessary. If we lived our lives trying to reduce the number of faith based judgments where ever possible it would be a great deal harder to justify blowing yourself up in the name of a talking cloud or killing others because a piece of paper says you both have the right to the same lands.

Faith should be described as what is it, something we want as few of in our lives as possible. If you want to paint your house, do you randomly pick a phone number out of the phone book and hope that he does exactly what you want and the price you want? If you don't want to take something as simple as painting a house on faith, why would you ever take something as important as the meaning of life on faith? You buy a used car and you have the engine checked and you make sure you aren't getting a lemon. When it comes to life after death you read a book that's been changed more times then a babies diaper and assume the truth of the matter. Faith is a bad thing and there's no limit to what you can justify with faith. You call people who commit acts in the name of faith extremists, but they are using the same system of justification for their beliefs that the guy who goes to church everyday does.

[Faris]

If Firas is saying implying there is no violence in the Quran then he's opening him up to a bunch of 'gotcha' type rebuttals.

If you juxtapose these ancient books and concepts to modern day blah blah then of course it's going to seem wacky.

But it is possible to be a Muslim and secular. Unless of course you hold Muslims to a different standard than every single other religious person (meaning to be a Muslim means you obey everything in the Quran - whereas you can be Christian or Jewish and ignore a lot of stuff in your respective ancient book).

There are people who say they are secular muslims, tailor your religion? that defies the divinity of the book then...if its the word of God, then it should all be followed.
Quran mentions punishments, does not tell any muslim to go kill.

a system that "claims" to be complete and has no punishments is an incomplete system.
so i dont know why punishment here is called violence.
if there is a law that needs to be executed, or a punishment, Muslims are not responsible for this. The leader/president is the one responsible to decide on this.
people going out of their way and "defending" religion by violence, is actually a great sin. The Prophet (PBUH) have warned us many times of this.

A muslim should believe in God and the Prophet (pbuh), pray five times a day, fast in ramadan, give charity, perform hajj. this is his/her obligation as a muslim.

and to blarg: Soorat Al Kafiroon (Kafreen: Disbelievers)

"Say: O ye that reject Faith!
I worship not that which ye worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
To you be your Way, and to me mine."

this is from the Quran, not a story you're quoting.

[Mayareira]

Praying 5 times a day = up to the person, I find it a waste of time.
Fast in Ramadan = Sounds OK.
Give Charity = You should, even without an ancient book telling you to do so.
Hajj = Money is MUCH better spent elsewhere.

You see, most of these stuff are outdated and serve no purpose at all in my opinion(however, they are mostly harmless). A secular government is a secular government. Religion is a spiritual calling and should remain between the person and what he believes in. The moment you put something else, as in government in beetween there'll be corruption. A government or a law should NOT represent a certain race, etnicity or religion.

[Faris]

Praying 5 times a day = up to the person, I find it a waste of time.
Fast in Ramadan = Sounds OK.
Give Charity = You should, even without an ancient book telling you to do so.
Hajj = Money is MUCH better spent elsewhere.

You see, most of these stuff are outdated and serve no purpose at all in my opinion(however, they are mostly harmless). A secular government is a secular government. Religion is a spiritual calling and should remain between the person and what he believes in. The moment you put something else, as in government in beetween there'll be corruption. A government or a law should NOT represent a certain race, etnicity or religion.

4io23ut34908g4nh403 praying five times a day is the main, MAIN thing in Islam. our prayers is very very different than christians...its what distinguish us from other religions, our 5 prayers, and by God without it there will be no Islam.

giving charity, you dont need god to tell us about it? trust me, if everyone gives charity, and helps the poor we wouldnt have poverty or hunger like we do now. and yes, we need someone to remind us about it, because hardly anyone does it.

hajj i agree with you, its made a materialistic issue now, it should have never been, Saudi is making it very hard for people to do hajj, and thats messed up, or maybe there are issues me and you don't understand about Saudi, i dont know.
but it is a pillar and it should be done, if the muslim can.

[Mayareira]

Look, its perfectly understandable and acceptable that you consider it a pillar of what you believe it. But should the government really promote it? Wouldn't it be unfair to the "other" guy who doesn't consider it as important as you do, or simply doesn't believe in it? That's where secularism kicks in. Keeps state and religion seperate.

What's the point of having "someone", a person in between you and what you/others believe in?

[Elvis]

And we still go back to the difference between psychosis that is derived from fantasy and "divine" truth and one developed from plain fear or rational decisions.

And you skipped the difference between the two: Dictatorships come and go as economies/tribes change and the people revolt. Religious tyrannies last through the ages, as they infect the very people they oppress.

Are you really equating nationalism to religious fanaticism?

Dictatorships do come and go but it's superficial to imply once they're gone - they stay gone. This is a part of human nature.

The nation-state system itself is structurally flawed.

I mean, how many nation-states WEREN'T founded on crazy bloodshed and atrocities? One group imposing a political entity (a STATE) onto another group is rarely if ever (I cannot think of one example) peaceful.

I am not saying the two concepts are the same. I'm saying they share similarities. Enough that the comparison is valid IMO.

This discussion has happened so many times in these threads but the point of contention is so vast. We usually end up making rhetorical arguments.

I mean, I do not even know how you can argue about something that spans all of history. Religion versus Political Pieties = Go!

It's a ridiculous premise.

[Faris]

Look, its perfectly understandable and acceptable that you consider it a pillar of what you believe it. But should the government really promote it? Wouldn't it be unfair to the "other" guy who doesn't consider it as important as you do, or simply doesn't believe in it? That's where secularism kicks in. Keeps state and religion seperate.

What's the point of having "someone", a person in between you and what you/others believe in?

since when did we impose the practice or belief of islam on any non-muslim?

Please refer to the verses I quoted from the Quran about Disbelievers earlier.

[Blarg]

and to blarg: Soorat Al Kafiroon (Kafreen: Disbelievers)


this is from the Quran, not a story you're quoting.

The 'story' I quoted was from the Hadith and even mention in them that your prophet said those things and wants/wanted them done. They were also concerning apostasy which is different than being an unbeliever.

I am assuming you know what apostasy means here and I wasn't claiming that the quotes were about any old unbeliever.

[Faris]

you probably missed the part where i mentioned it is not the responsibility of any muslim to carry out any sort of punishment, unless he is the leader/president; the "top man" sort to say.

if everyone is going to execute punishment the way they see fit, then we will have many flaws and it would be chaotic.
but yeah, for apostasy, there is a system for performing the punishment that you mentioned. its not as simple as: "you dont believe in Allah? no? i'm killing you"
i dont know the whole procedure and the special circumstances exactly, but one thing i read, is that the person should be advised/reminded 3 times before deciding on anything further. how deep is this advise/reminder and how long can it be, i myself dont know.

[Blarg]

you probably missed the part where i mentioned it is not the responsibility of any muslim to carry out any sort of punishment, unless he is the leader/president; the "top man" sort to say.

if everyone is going to execute punishment the way they see fit, then we will have many flaws and it would be chaotic.
but yeah, for apostasy, there is a system for performing the punishment that you mentioned. its not as simple as: "you dont believe in Allah? no? i'm killing you"
i dont know the whole procedure and the special circumstances exactly, but one thing i read, is that the person should be advised/reminded 3 times before deciding on anything further. how deep is this advise/reminder and how long can it be, i myself dont know.

Ok, so given the proper steps to make sure the person has really committed apostasy and with the approval of the authority it is fine and seen as acceptable for the punishment of apostasy to be death?